[ODE] hardware physics chip

[Harald Schmid]

Hi John,

Where would you say the challenge lies for good collision detection?

So far I'm mostly concerned with base collision detection, and there
are many numerical issues with inefficient collision.

Harald


On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 08:51:35 -0800, John Miles <jmiles at pop.net> wrote:
> > I'm just waiting to hear about a new DirectPhysics library from MS now -)
> 
> I'd be surprised if that were too far behind. :-)
> 
> > Seriously though, the chip will have serious market penetration issues if
> > they actually encoded the Novodex codebase into the chip.
> > Physics is one of
> > those things that often has to be tailored on a per-game basis, so while
> > this would provide a minimalistic solution - it would not provide the
> > open-ended access needed to go beyond the "look-ma, lots of simulating
> > objects" first-pass google-fest.
> 
> I disagree strongly.  It is true that physics *parameters* need to be
> tailored on a per-game basis, and probably always will, but a
> properly-designed physics API is the most generic, black-boxable thing in
> the world.  It is possible to design a physics API that makes everyone
> happy... *if* you agree from the outset that certain aspects are going to
> have to taken out of the application's hands if hardware acceleration is
> going to work.
> 
> For instance, micromanagement of collision behavior via application
> callbacks is probably not a Good Thing if you want accelerator hardware to
> perform without being hamstrung by communication with the host CPU.
> 
> I've used Novodex, and found it to be a very solid API.  Nobody who's using
> ODE is going to have a serious beef with it.  I have not used Havok... but
> if I were Havok, I'd be sweating bullets right now.  Novodex is a hell of a
> nice dynamics package even without hardware acceleration, and it's a lot
> cheaper than Havok's offering.
> 
> > Not to mention locking out any progress
> > made on new solution techniques etc.
> 
> There hasn't been much in the way of cool new hotness in the dynamics
> business since Principia Mathematica came out.  It's all been implementation
> details since then.
> 
> Besides, GPUs haven't exactly held back progress in the graphics world, have
> they?  If a need emerges for the physics equivalent of a pixel shader, it
> will happen.  Dynamics is much easier to fit into a fixed-function pipeline
> than rendering, so I'll be surprised if this proves to be a legitimate
> complaint going forward.
> 
> > I'm assuming as well that, given the
> > boards have 128MB of ram, that when they talk physics - they mean both
> > simulation and collision.  Opcode is a step-penetration collision system,
> > while some games may need to do sweep tests for some objects.   Looking
> > forward to seeing some real information on the chip as so far, I've only
> > seen the PR propaganda -)
> 
> Agreed, collision is the scary part.
> 
> -- john
> 
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ODE mailing list
> ODE at q12.org
> http://q12.org/mailman/listinfo/ode
> 


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Harald Schmid
-Student-
Jochbergweg 5
85748 Garching

Email: mail at schmid-harald.de
www: http://www.schmid-harald.de
Mobil: +49 (179) 9113493